A Division Bench of Madras High Court comprising of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, in the case of K Raju v. Union of India & Ors. [in W.P. No. 29988 of 2019], has on 19 February 2021 held that only senior citizens/parents are entitled to file an appeal against an order passed by the Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007. It must be mentioned here that while holding thus, the Court dismissed a petition seeking a declaration that any aggrieved party to an order passed under the Act can file appeal under Section 16.
Factual Background
This Petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Declaration, declaring that any aggrieved party to an order passed under The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007, can file an Appeal under Sec.16(1) of the said Act, with reference to the case in Balbir Kaur v. Presiding Officer-cum-SDM of the Maintenance & Welfare of Senior Citizen Tribunal, Kurukshetra and others and consequently, direct the 2nd respondent to take the appeal on file.
The matter pertained to Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Sub-section (1) of such provision permited only any senior citizen or a parent, who is aggrieved by an order of a tribunal passed under such Act, to prefer an appeal to the appellate tribunal. The first proviso to such provision adds that merely because an appeal has been filed by a senior citizen or a parent aggrieved by the quantum of maintenance allowed would not permit the children or relative who are directed to pay the maintenance to suspend the payment of the maintenance as directed. The second proviso enlarges the period of receiving an appeal upon sufficient cause being indicated. Subsection (2) through sub-section (7) of Section 16 of the Act pertain to the conduct of the appeal and do not reflect anything on who may prefer an appeal and who may be regarded as a person aggrieved.
Reasoning & Decision of the Court
Words used in the 2007 are lucid- it cannot be interpreted to mean that any class of persons can file an appeal
"The words used in the provision are lucid and, by no stretch of imagination, can such clear words of the statute be read or understood or interpreted to imply that any class of persons other than any senior citizen or a parent may be entitled to prefer an appeal under such provision. The terms “senior citizens” and “parent” are defined in Section 2 of the Act. The word “Tribunal” is also defined to mean the Maintenance Tribunal as constituted under Section 7 of the Act.”
Bail is a creation of a Statute
“It is elementary that an appeal is a creature of a statute and no right of appeal inheres in any person unless such right is expressly conferred by any statute. It is possible for a right of appeal to be hedged with conditions or even a right of appeal to be granted to a class of persons and not granted to another. It is the wisdom of the legislature to decide what classes of persons would be entitled to the right of appeal and what conditions may be attached to the exercise of such right and how such right may be exercised.”
“At the highest, an appellate provision may be assailed as unreasonable as falling foul of the constitutional principles, particularly under Article 14 thereof. But merely because a class of persons has been conferred the right to prefer an appeal while another class may have not been given such right, ipso facto, would not make the appellate provision vulnerable to any challenge under Article 14 of the Constitution. Indeed, the right of appeal that inheres in a party to the lis at the time of initiation of the lis may also be subsequently taken away by legislature, the only caveat being that such a right must be expressly taken away and such right cannot be seen to be extinguished by implication.”
The Court further observed that when the clear words of a statute do not permit any other meaning or interpretation, particularly when it pertains to a right of appeal, additional words cannot be read into the provision to discover a right in favour of a class of persons excluded by necessary implication in the appellate provision. Furthe that when the words used in Section 16 of the Act are “Any senior citizen or a parent ... aggrieved by order of a Tribunal may ... prefer an appeal...” and the other words govern the time or describe the senior citizens or the parent in the alternative, there is no room to imagine that others aggrieved by an order of the tribunal may also prefer an appeal on the ground that the scales must be balanced between the two sides.
Held
In the light of the above and there being no other issue involved, appeal was dismissed.
Case Details
Name: K Raju v. Union of India & Ors.
Case No.: W.P. No. 29988 of 2019
Bench: Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Read Order@LatestLaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
